according to Polish sausage sources:

F-16 and MiG-29 are nearly comparable in BVR
MiG-29 early advantage over F-16 in WVR but changing after upgrades on F-16
F-16 significant advantage over MiG-29 in operations and maintenance
F-16 significant advantage over MiG-29 in strike. after all the F-16 is replacing the Su-22

winner still F-16

Two separate and reputable sources confirm single YF-23 style internal weapons bay placed between the cockpit and the intake. The picture is just an early model, the real one was not allowed to be photographed but said to be about the size of a Super Hornet powered by two EJ2X0 engines. Imagine a lower-drag(This is not a naval jet so they don’t need as much low-speed lift) stealth shaped Super Hornet and you will get the picture.

Seems that they are trying to minimize American content in the KFX due to the opposition from the US aerospace industry lobby, namely Lockheed Martin.

At the press conference held in Seoul earlier today, EADS CASA and Boeing reps voiced their willingness to join the KFX program, but Lockheed Martin refuses to.

sources schmorses, the latest pictures show not one but TWO models with no internal bay.. it’ll barely be able to lick the F-35 or J-31, let alone defeat it.

Hmmmmm……..I’m drooling here, which was probably their plan the whole time, leave your enemy drooling, I mean who could actually fire a shot at this assembly of mean machine’s!?

gay sailors. there’s quite a few of them in various navies.

The Su-34 program did not recieve funding for years during late 90’s you smuch.. but i guess you allready knew this.. but can’t help your self..:rolleyes:

Thats why the Su-34 program took forever, not because of its complexity or size.

harvey dent, no need to name call our local golden eagle.
and yes, its lack of funding and long development period for a relatively single purpose design makes it an expensive collection to maintain.

at least during the chaos thatis the 90s, the Su-30 line still saw relevent upgrades and the Russians shouldve piggy backed on the　IAF order。well they are doing that now..but shouldve done that 10 years ago

It has nothing to do with ones favorite jet.
It has to do with common sense.
The Mig-31 is a tad older vs Su-34 don’t u think? So its only natural that it will eventual be replaced, but with what.. VVS have to wait for the Pak-Fa to Mature and enter a solid production line.

As for the Su-34. What does it replace, the Su-24.
The VVS structure was left with over 300 Su-24 after SU collapsed.
There are not many baseline Su-24 left in servic, if any at all..
If you think VVS can just wait for the Su-35S to finnish State Trials and finaly enter full rate production, well you have to wait until end of 2014.
There is no doubt that the Su-34 is a far more suitble platform to do deep strike mission vs any Sy-35S or Su-30SM.
Now stop and think about it, why do VVS see the Su-34 enter service after all these years with delays?

And the Su-35S, Su-34 and Su-30SM share a lot of the same service maintanace pool. If they should ditch something it would be the Mig-29, Su-24M And all base line Su-27.

As for Su-34 production rate, well NAPO did deliver 5+5 units at the and of last year. I’d say it will improve over the next years.

I’d see the need for Mig-29K for RuN though..

Simple, do as the US did.. take a tandem two seater heavy fighter and turn it into a striker with the right avionics upgrades. The only thing lost is the mythical toilet and microwave.

Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree – IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let’s be honest, as the world’s only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it’s not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.

More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.

you make the most sense, too bad some people get too defensive about their favorite airplanes and try to justify its existence. The MiG-31 is one airplane everyone keeps mentioning is needed and whose role can’t be replicated by another or a mix of systems, yet these same people don’t oppose the T-50 which will eventually replace it and the Flanker. Standardizing on a few models doesn’t seem to be going well.

look at that long long bottom bay.. looks like its long enough to carry some heavy, large, well endowed missile.

I am more concerned with returns from gaps, seams and discontinuities which the T-50 seems to be having aplenty.

Starting with the leading edge slats, the various vents and the gaps between the weapon bays. Especially the leading edge slats were a big puzzle to me. Both US fighters, the 22 and the 35 have a leading edge slat that runs all the way to the edge of the wing without leaving that characteristic dog tooth at the wing’s edge. The T-50 does not.

The devil is in the details.

T-50 is still a prototype, there’s perhaps time for them to work those things out in the production version